Yes, it would make thinks very interesting development wise if there was a dependable revenue stream.

If you just imagine that Vectorlinux has gotten to where it is now with just the part-time passions for a handful of developers.Just imagine again what could be done if those 4 or 5 actually could devote their efforts to it full-time.

I agree with the speaker in this video. You don't need 100 dev's to make good software, anywhere from 1-5 who can devote themselves to it full-time can do amazing things.

Trouble is I don't know of any "Desktop" distribution that has been successful with a revenue model. With opensource the technology is easy and accessible the real barriers are revenue and time.

I think a subscription model makes sense. I pay 6.99 per month to build up credits at audible.com. I never notice it, but when I go there to pick up a new book, I'm amazed how many credits I have built.Even if users could be altruistic enough to sign on to say $10.00/mth we would still need 500 to 600 subscribers to put one of the dev's on to full time.

Also a pay for software model makes sense. Maybe .99 cents per download.

Is it fair to ask users to pay 10.00/month or for software downloads? I'd say so, absolutely. Compared to the yearly costs of running Windows or Mac, that's cheap, but VL's competition is not Windows or Mac, it's other Linux's.And it's not that users are not willing to pay to support a Linux distribution, but competition in the Linux world is a great example of what Adam Smith predicted in "Wealth of Nations"Paraphrasing...

Quote

Competition of the traditional variety, with multiple firms offering nearly identical products and services, can quickly push prices to zero.

So, there is the rub. My one prediction is that what will ultimately be the One Linux distribution to rule them all, does not need to be the best linux distribution at all. It simply needs to be the one that answers this riddle, and figures out how to get paid.

I have been trying out various linuxes lately, gentoo, arch, chakra just recently. Mint a whie back, i never liked ubuntu. The reason i like vector is that it gives you a nice default interface to start customizing.Most of the distros i have tried seem to me to have really glaring problems, they either remove or make difficult interface and customization choices (chakra, mint) or make the experience of using them so complex (gentoo) that its easier to just install something else. Im probably the exception to the rule, my preferred interface is fluxbox, rox and some kind of panel and have been carrying around some of the same scripts and config files since '99 or so. I take a look at the latest and greatest and go right back to fluxbox because adopting the latest and greatest usually means sacrificing some functionality. I dont do any actual work on linux anymore and when i did my main tools were vi, perl, and ssh. Linux is more of a hobby to me now, so i dont have much to say about his applications comments. I do use gimp a bit for graphics stuff, fluxbox themes for my own use, mostly, but i wonder how many users there are like me who are for the most part satisified with linux in its current state (at least compared to the alternatives).

Anyway, one of the things im getting to with all this rambling, is that what makes vectorlinux great imo, is that if new users stick with the default interface, it seems to me that its pretty easy to use stable and fast and for someone like me, an old linux curmudgeon, its easily customizable and its easy to construct an interface that works for you.

Vector linux really strikes a nice balance, take a look at some of the other choices and you really start to appreciate that. Linux may suck, but Vector sucks less (i wouldnt recommend that as the distro tagline BTW )

To gain the desktop market share Linux need to be more geekless and i think ubuntu is going toward that...many hardcore linux users may not like it but that is the fact that the average users is way more compare to the pro users.

To gain the desktop market share Linux need to be more geekless and i think ubuntu is going toward that...many hardcore linux users may not like it but that is the fact that the average users is way more compare to the pro users.

I compare Ubuntu to OS X. In essence, the devs are encouraging another generation of clueless, click happy users who still don't know what's going on under the hood. I'm all for empowering the users, but at times I really have to wonder whether it's wise to follow the "easy for the clueless to use" path.